Saturday, November 12, 2016

THE ILLUSION OF MATTER AND GRAVITY


MORE ABOUT THE ILLUSION OF MATTER AND GRAVITY

©Edward R. Close Novemver 12, 2016

In the last post I discussed the true nature of mass, the measure which we mistakenly take to indicate the existence of what we perceive to be solid matter. We have seen that, as Max Planck said, there truly is no matter as such; matter is an illusion created by inertia, the resistance to motion. We have traced this resistance to the gyroscopic-like inertia of the spinning of something at the quantum and atomic levels of physical reality. But, just what is that something, and why is it spinning? Before I attempt to answer these important questions, I’d like to put this into the proper historical perspective: It is a basic principle of relativity that inertial and gravitational mass are actually one and the same thing. Einstein called this the “Equivalence Principal’. This principal, which was posited by the Austrian polymath Ernst Mach (1838 – 1916), inspired Einstein to think in broader relativistic terms, but exactly how inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent has never been fully explained, nor has it been explainable, – until now.

The limitations of our physical senses and extensions of them create the illusion of solid matter, but that illusion fades away as soon as we try to precisely locate the separate entities that we have conceptualized as atoms, protons, neutrons and quarks. As we try to isolate these ‘particles’, seeking to find the ultimate substance of reality, they simply slip through our fingers, and any other net we can devise, leaving us with ephemeral ‘massless’ bits of conceptual nothingness we conceptualize as gluons and bosons. But, by recognizing that there is a ‘bottom’ to quantum reality, and applying the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions to quantized reality, defining the true quantum unit (TRUE), and solving the resulting Diophantine equations, we see beyond the illusion of solid matter and we find that reality actually depends entirely upon the existence of a third form of that spinning something that cannot be directly measured as mass nor energy, but that is equivalent to mass and energy at the quantum level. That something is what we have called gimmel. With the discovery of gimmel and the hyper-dimensionality of space, time and consciousness, we are now at long last in a position to explain what mass and gravity really are.

The Equivalence Principle says that resistance to motion, whether it is measured as the force it takes to blast the mass of a rocket from the surface of Planet Earth, or the force it takes to overcome the resistance to motion due to the spinning of the substance of reality at the quantum level, is really the same thing. How can this be? To see the truth behind this, we must reverse the reductionist approach of particle physics and abandon the illusion that reality is separated into ‘particles’ at the quantum level, and see the universe as an integrated multi-dimensional reality. This is hard for us to do because for all practical purposes, objects can be considered to be quite separate on the macro level, but, if objects at the quantum level are not separate, objects at the macro level are not really separate either. The shift to a multi-dimensional understanding of reality requires a deeper understanding of relativity and quantum physics, and in particular a deeper understanding of the Equivalence Principle.

We have to expand our conceptualization of reality to include consciousness, space, time, mass and energy as the real, measurable parameters of multi-dimensional distinctions of extent and content mathematically related by volumetric equivalence at the quantum level. This means extending the mathematical description of reality into dimensions beyond the three dimensions of space and one of time. Efforts in this direction were made by German physicists Theodore Kaluza and Wolfgang Pauli, Swedish physicist Oscar Klein, and others. Kaluza, who was encouraged by Einstein, expanded the general relativity model into five dimensions and was successful in unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Klein, who developed a 5-D model independently, had some success combining quantum theory with his five-D model. However, these efforts were eclipsed in mainstream physics by easier pathways to progress by developing relativity and quantum theory separately, and the 5-D effort, known as the Kaluza-Klein model is generally considered to be simply a forerunner of modern string theory.

Hyper-dimensional relativistic quantum theory never really got off the ground because of multiple conceptual errors arising from the inappropriate application of infinitesimal calculus to quantum reality and the resulting lack of development of an appropriate mathematical approach. In order to explain how we can avoid these conceptual errors and get back on the right track, I will have to speak in terms that may seem very abstract to the average reader. Fortunately, the concepts are simple, and it may actually be the well-educated scientist who will have a more of a problem here because he/she will have to unlearn some of the standard dogma of conventional mathematical physics taught in our colleges and universities today.

I don’t want to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. I want to assure you that I am not saying that all of the math and physics developed since the paradigm shifts of relativity and quantum mechanics in the first half of the last century are worthless or meaningless. Not at all. But, due to narrow professional specialization and academic departmentalization, the direct relationship between mathematics and physical reality has been misunderstood and almost completely lost.

Philosophically, most mainstream scientists align themselves with logical positivism, roughly defined as any system of thought that confines itself to the factual data of experience and excludes a priori or metaphysical speculation. This approach was articulated by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857). The basic precepts of positivism are (1) that all factual knowledge is based on the “positive” data of experience and (2) that beyond the realm of facts is that of pure logic and pure mathematics. The position of Danish physicist Niels Bohr, sometimes called the father of quantum physics, exemplifies this position. He said:

“Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience… There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... In this respect our task must be to account for such experience in a manner independent of individual subjective judgement and therefore objective in the sense that it can be unambiguously communicated in ordinary human language.”

These quotes are found in “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr” by Aage Petersen, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 19, No. 7 (September 1963), ”The Genius of Science: A Portrait Gallery” (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24, and in “Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object” (2001) by Paul. McEvoy, p. 291.

There is much to be said for the positivist point of view, especially in experimental physics. Of course, wild, undisciplined speculation should be avoided because, while there may be an infinite number of ways to be wrong, there is arguably only one way to be right. Strict adherence to this approach, however, would virtually eliminate theoretical physics and severely limit the advancement of science. Contrast Bohr, for example with Einstein, who said in his 1933 Herbert Spencer lecture:

“If, then, it is true that the axiomatic foundation of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, may we ever hope to find the right way? Furthermore, does this right way exist anywhere other than in our illusions? May we hope to be guided safely by experience at all, if there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without comprehending the matter in a deep way? To these questions, I answer with complete confidence, that, in my opinion, the right way exists, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those law-like connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed.” (The emphases in bold are mine.)

I have reproduced this Einstein quote in its entirety here because I wanted to capture the deep sense of his thought process so that you can see that, in a very real way, TDVP is actually a continuation along the same line of enquiry pursued by Albert Einstein. In fact, I would state this view of reality even more strongly as follows: Mathematics is not just a tool invented by human beings for solving quantifiable problems. Pure mathematical thought is a true reflection of reality at its deepest level.

As for me, I reject the conclusions of mainstream physicists like Bohr and Feynman, who proclaim that “quantum physics is just weird. You can’t understand it, just accept that that’s the way it is and go on with the practical application of its principles to technology.” I agree with Einstein that the truth exists and we are capable of finding it.

In our first book together, “Reality Begins with Consciousness” available at www.BrainVoyage.com, Dr. Neppe and I introduced the concept of Lower-Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification (LFAF): the inclusion of concepts in scientific hypotheses that may not be falsifiable in the 3S-1t domain. Our physical senses are not only severely limited, detecting only very narrow ranges of energy, they do not reveal more than three spatial dimensions and one moment in time, even though the existence of additional dimensions is clearly required by both relativity and quantum physics.


Mainstream science has gone astray because it has taken the positivist approach too literally, confusing conceptual mathematical tools with pure, or existential mathematics. By missing this distinction, scientists have gone down the wrong path, continuing to apply infinitesimal calculus to quantum reality, where it doesn’t apply, resulting in paradoxes and illogical conclusions. Most scientists don’t even realize that ‘the calculus’ of Newton and Leibniz is only one of a number of possible calculi, and most mathematicians ignore the distinction between conceptual and existential mathematics. In my next post, I will clarify these distinctions and show you how the TDVP nine-dimensional model of space, time and consciousness explains mass and gravity.

No comments:

Post a Comment